Editorial: Is Obamacare a work in progress?

Today is Saturday, and many Americans — hopefully — just completed a week of good, hard, honest work.

Thanks to a little item tucked away in Obamacare, the federal government will make that determination.

The House of Representatives voted Thursday to tweak a bit of the so-called Affordable Care Act — specifically the part about the federal government deciding that full-time work is 30 hours per week, not the traditional 40-hour work week.

By a 248-179 vote, the House passed H.R. 2575: Save American Workers Act of 2014.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, and Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Lubbock, voted in favor of the bill, as did 18 Democrats.

The Obama administration, through Obamacare, defines a full-time worker as an employee that works 30 hours a week, and employers with 50 or more full-time employees must provide health care coverage or face the possibility of significant fines. HR 2575 institutes the traditional 40-hour work week.

The bill faces little chance of surviving in the Senate (we saw one estimate giving the bill a 14 percent chance of passage, which is probably optimistic).

Here’s the potential problem: If the cost of providing health care becomes a financial burden, employers will make sure more of their employees work less than 30 hours a week — and considering the still shaky state of the U.S. economy, would this be a surprise?

Some might consider the 40-hour work week antiquated in the digital age, but is it justified for the federal government to redefine the traditional work week?

The 40-hour work week (or the eight-hour work day) goes way back to an old slogan, which, more or less, consisted of eight hours of work, eight hours of recreation and eight hours rest.

As Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Arkansas, stated, workers in France must work 35 hours a week to be considered full-time workers, so America will be falling behind the work ethic of the French.

Ultimately, is the federal government is going to alter the 40-hour work week just to force employers to provide questionable health insurance that promises lower premiums with a quality standard of care?

It seems the Obama administration knows no boundaries when it comes to determining what is best for Americans — even when it comes to their work schedules.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comment viewing options

Sort Comments

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another AGN anti-Obama Care editorial. Can't imagine. The House and Senate passed the Affordable Care Act with its provisions for the signature of the president. After a very bad rollout for a month, the ACA was quite successful and met its original sign-up goals despite all sorts of right wing efforts to discourage and scare people away. And these numbers will only increase. There will be some changes and adjustments in the programs as it goes along as would be expected in a program of this magnitude. However, if there are any very major changes to the program, it would likely be in the direction in the future of a universal single payer system.

There is nothing "traditional" about the 40 hour work week. Until the latter half of the 19th Century, the standard work week in Western Europe and the United States was 10-16 hours per day, 6 days per week. As labor organized, shorter workdays were a cause fought for (sometimes literally) in every workgroup, and in stages fiercely resisted by management, they got a 10 hour, then a 9 hour and eventually an 8 hour day, with Ford Motor Company being the first large employer to adopt the 8 hour day exactly 100 years ago. In the 1930s, the Federal government enacted legislation requiring overtime pay for anything over 40 hours in a week (or comp time). The "old slogan" was in fact "Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest" used as a rallying cry of British labor reformer Robert Owen in 1810.

What the ACA defines is not a new definition of the work week. It is a new definition of what constitutes a full-time job, and hence requiring full benefits. It counters the efforts of employers to shortchange employees by cutting their hours below whatever the definition of full-time is. In Amarillo, I know at least one industry which allows employees to choose a work week of 3 12-hour shifts or 4 10-hour shifts, with either being "full-time": nurses at our two hospitals. Otherwise, the 36 hour nurses could be cut out of full-time benefits. Reducing the number of shift-change handoffs reduces errors and also reduces time away from patient care, and many nurses like the extra day off.

And Dave: How about identifying all these grandstanding Republican charades of reforming the ACA for what they are, theater with no chance of actually being passed and signed? Call us when they actually enact something.

The Affordable Healthcare Act is law, and has been for years. It is successful, and will be more so in the coming years. Change the channel Dave. Your right wing crazy rants about Obama Care are getting really old.

Proponents of the bill stressed the need to fulfill the President's promise to correct conditions under which "one-third of the population" were "ill-nourished, ill-clad, and ill- housed." They pointed out that, in industries which produced products for interstate commerce, the bill would end oppressive child labor and "unnecessarily long hours which wear out part of the working population while they keep the rest from having work to do." Shortening hours, they argued, would "create new jobs...for millions of our unskilled unemployed," and minimum wages would "underpin the whole wage structure...at a point from which collective bargaining could take over." 22

Above is an excerpt from the article linked below.

As noted, legislating a standard forty-hour work week had a two-fold intention: along with relieving the burden of long hours on some it created an incentive for employers to hire more people. I had always heard the law was written during the Depression and enacted in the late '30's and its main aim was to put more people to work. The ACA requirements could do the same albeit at a radically reduced rate of hours. (However , unlike the 1930's there is now a disincentive to work because of the subsidies provided to cover healthcare cost for those who don't.)

I think folks call that unintended consequences however with this administration they could well be intended; they can claim the law increased jobs; they will conveniently leave out that it actually reduced the number of FTE's.

I think most folks agree that the system needed reforms but the ACA so far is FUBAR.

During either of the Bush administrations or earlier the Republicans could have passed their own plan providing universal health insurance. . President Nixon stated he favored an National Health Insurance Plan and President Ford advocated a catastrophic national plan. Unfortunately neither were willing to make it a priority.

None of the Republican contenders in 2008 0r 20012 presented an alternative to President Obama's plan. Former Governor Romney, who demonstrated his ability to implement a workable program on the state level, even seemed to disavow his success.

Now the Republicans are coming up with their own plans when they could have passed and implemented their plans 10- 20 years ago. I think Governor Romney would have beaten President Obama if he had run touting his proven track record, skill, and experience in implementing health care reform. 97% of the residents of Mass. have good health insurance and that is something to be very proud of.

If the republicans can come up with a program that will more efficiently provide coverage to more people then it deserves our support. Right now, the ACA, even with its numerous flaws, is better than what we had.

Possible unintended consequences of employer mandated health insurance is perhaps a reason for implementing a single payer Medicare for all type system or perhaps some radically different system that doesn't link health care to an employer.

The government takes everything you make then pays all your healthcare, housing, food, transportation then gives you a monthly allowance for incidentals. That is not the country I want to be a part of regardless of its geographical location.

My daughter, a college student who is covered by my insurance (as was the case even before Obamacare), needs no benefits and is struggling to get her Bachelors and Masters with no debt had to go get a second lesser paying job. Why? Because her first job now limits her to only 27 hours a week rather than the 35 to 40 she used to get, so her employer can avoid being forced to provide insurance she does not want and does not need. She has offered to sign disclaimers but HR says the law is the law. Yep, that was a pretty longsighted law. (Insert sarcasm in that last statement)

1. Did not provide anything close to universal coverage.
2. Did not have provisions for making insurance available to those with preexisting conditions. They are the ones most expensive to insure.
3. Did not provide adequate funding to come anywhere close to making Medicaid or other insurance affordable to many low income people.
4. Did not mandate the purchase of insurance, resulting in health care providers continuing to overcharge paying patients to compensate for emergency treatment to the uninsured.
5. President Bush and the republicans never made health care reform a priority.

I really appreciate the links and will comment later.

Re: your daughter. It is unfortunate that there may be some situations where full time jobs have been reduce to part time as a response to the Affordable Care Act. The good news is that people without an employer sponsored plan, even with preexisting conditions, can now affordably purchase health insurance. That is a big deal.

It's apparent that people defending Obamacare just don't see or ignore the reality that is hitting their fellow citizens! For some Ignorance is Bliss!

For others who are trying to implement the ACA(Obamacare) plans and operate within the "law" the reality is present every minute! High Deductibles, High Premiums along with network availability problems!

Talk to a health insurance rep to just hear what's available in the Gold, Silver, Bronze,,,,,Metallic plans!!

News Flash.... We supposedly had 40-50 million uninsured at the beginning we wanted to help! Even if all 7.1 million were uninsured, which only less than 1/3 rd were, we still have 35-40 million uninsured!That's nothing to be called Successful by any standards!! White House Spin along with MSM propaganda leads some down the delusional thinking/acceptance path!

How many of those 20+ million uninsured will be so because of the Right Wing refusal to institute the Law? You can blame the law all you want, but a huge swath of people will not get coverage because of right wing policies. Like those millions in Texas.

As for being factual, you wouldn't call something that has been the norm (if not the law) since the 1930s as "tradition?"

"There is nothing 'traditional' about the 40 hour work week."

Hmm. If these standards are to be used to determine what is "traditional" and what is not, perhaps someday the New York Yankees (with 24 World Series titles since the 1930s) will have a winning tradition.

Xao, that figure came from the CBO based on the law as passed not taking any "Right wing" policies into account. The answer to "How many of those 20+ million uninsured will be so because of the Right Wing refusal to institute the Law?" would be zero, zilch, nada. All of those 20+ Million would be as a direct result of the ACA exactly as the Dimocrats rammed it through Congress.

OK if I lose my job or I have to have 2 jobs in order to pay for health insurance increases as dml's daughter as had to do then how is dml or the daughter better off?

Granted she has insurance while Obama is strutting around like some bantam rooster. Somehow - I do not believe that dml is copying the strut and is less than happy because like most parents has to make that up for the increase somewhere else. The daughter will probably have to be in school a little longer because of looking for a new job and increased hours w/o pay to take care of the employment situation.

I have college age children right now and even if my sons compensate for these type of problems then it is just only a short time until they have a need that cannot be taken care of without mom or dad.

Thank you Obama for increasing student debt by increasing their health insurance premiums and tuition through offering aid to so many colleges and universities to have more construction.

I just did some quick research and that 2012 CBO projects that, overall, the number of uninsured Americans will drop by 29 million to 31 million due to the law. So a net increase of 29 million insured people.

It also stated 8 million low incomes people would be ineligible for the law's expansion of Medicaid because they live in states that have declined to expand the program.

So yes the Right wing policies are causing ~ 10 million people to be unable to get healthcare.

Interesting Xao, you claim to have seen this in a 2012 CBO report? Funny, because the states did not even announce they were not participating in the exchanges in late 2012 with most not announcing until 2013. Interesting how that was included in the 2012 report you read. That 26 to 27 million figure came from a CBO published before the SCOTUS made its ruling, before states had the right to opt out. Again, "The CBO has determined that when Obamacare is fully implemented there will still be 26 to 27 million who lack insurance" , and that is based on the initial CBO report giving estimates before the law was ever passed.

If you look at the whole history of labor in America for which people are paid by others, there was a much longer period of work weeks greater than 40 hours, gradually and grudgingly shortened to the current stage, where many people work 40 hour weeks but it is by no means standardized; the only thing standardized is the requirement that there be extra pay for hours beyond 40. Except for child labor laws, the government has never defined or restricted the hours in a work week. If an employer wants to offer a job requiring 50 or 60 hours per week, he is free to do so. He just has to pay overtime beyond 40 hours. During my working lifetime, from age 25 to retirement I never worked a single week with as few as 40 hours; not once. 40 hours is currently modal, but tradition is a much stronger thing. History shows that the mode changes.

The important things are two: 10 The ACA simply defines the number of hours above which, if an employer provides health insurance, a worker must be treated as eligible. Nearly all employers with 50+ employees were providing insurance before the ACA was enacted. An employer who reduces an employee's hours to avoid having to provide health insurance risks losing good people and having to hire less skilled replacements, and angering his whole workforce. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish. And 2) The House Republicans are fooling no one by passing bills that have no chance of becoming law. Add one more anti-Obamacare charade to the many dozens before it. God help American voters if they're buying it as a reason to re-elect the same feckless clowns.

insured. That is primarily because 1. many states are refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion. 2. there are inadequate enforcement provisions in the individual mandate.

This is a link to a more radical proposal to provide health care for everyone with a more market incentives. The aithor of this proposal is critical of the ACA, Medicare and our private insurance system. This is a long article but the author proposes the government providing a very high deductible catastrophic policy for everyone and then tax deductible flexible spending accounts that can accumulate from ear to year. Low income people would receive a government subsidy for their individual flexible spending account. Consequently, all but catastrophic care would be paid by the individual providing a more closer financial relationship between the provider and the patient and more accountability to the patient. Patents would have more inventive to shop for health care, take care of their bodies and avoid excessive costs